Emer Costello, rapporteur. − Mr President, this proposal is presented against the backdrop of rising poverty and deprivation across Europe as a result of the crisis. There are almost 120 million Europeans – a quarter of our total population – at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Over 40 million suffer from extreme material deprivation, this means that they are unable to put a basic meal on the table every other day. Almost six million children do not have two pairs of shoes. Over four million people are homeless.

Since 1987, the Food Distribution Programme has been an important support for organisations in direct contact with people on the margins of society. Eighteen million people across 19 Member States are benefiting from this programme this year. Ending the Food Distribution Programme next December without a replacement European programme would pose a direct threat to food aid programmes in many Member States.

The proposal that we are considering today envisages European support for national schemes that address poverty, which exist in all Member States, but it would go beyond the Food Distribution Programme by introducing the possibility for the distribution of basic material assistance. This could include, for example, starter packs for homeless people moving into a new home or clothing and footwear for children. It would also introduce support for accompanying measures aimed at the social reintegration of end recipients that many of the organisations involved in food aid programmes already provide.

I would like to thank and pay tribute to the shadow rapporteurs, to my colleagues in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee as well as to the rapporteurs for opinions from the other committees. Over 500 amendments were initially tabled, and we managed to reach consensus on the vast majority of these, on issues such as the broader scope, developing the partnership principle, the definitions, mutual learning, co-financing, reducing the administrative burden on NGOs and developing synergies with other EU policies in the area of food waste and healthy diet.

Much of the discussion then in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee centred around two issues. Firstly, as rapporteur I recommended that the proposed budget for FEAD be at least the equivalent amount of the existing food programme, that is EUR 3.5 billion instead of the EUR 2.5 billion which was proposed by the Commission. There was a clear majority in favour of this proposal in the committee. There is a technical amendment tabled in this regard for plenary which reflects the vote of the Social Affairs Committee, and I commend this amendment.

Secondly, one of the central issues to emerge in the debate concerns the participation of Member States, specifically whether the funding should be ringfenced for the most deprived, as originally proposed by the Commission, or alternatively if it should be reallocated to other EU programmes not necessarily targeting the most deprived. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee decided overwhelmingly to endorse the Commission’s original proposal on this point.

There are amendments from two political groups – ALDE and the Greens – proposing that, if Member States decide not to take part in the Fund, they may use the funding for other EU programmes. I would have strong concerns that these amendments, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent for the reallocation of funding between programmes. They could also delay the entry into force of the new Fund, which is planned for January 2014. January is, by the way, one of the coldest and most difficult months of the year for the target group. The amendments could also delay the programming of the European Social Fund and ERDF from next year. I therefore cannot accept the amendments tabled by ALDE and the Greens.

It should be noted that the responsibility and the obligation to combat poverty and social exclusion will remain with the Member States. FEAD is intended to complement national policies, not replace them.

It is by no means an alternative or a substitute. But it would enable the European Union to continue to contribute towards alleviating some of the worst forms of poverty and social exclusion. FEAD would, in fact, be the only EU instrument that specifically targets people who are on the margins of society, including people who are often well beyond the reach of the ESF.

In short, the Fund for the European Aid to the Most Deprived is a sign of European solidarity with those hardest hit by the crisis. I urge Members to endorse the report as adopted by the Employment and Social Affairs Committee so that we have a strong mandate to negotiate with the Council and Commission and see FEAD commence operations, as planned, from early next year.

László Andor, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission is grateful for this House’s support for the creation of a Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. Indeed, a growing number of European citizens are facing extreme forms of poverty because of this long crisis, with severe consequences such as food deprivation and homelessness, in all Member States.

The political importance of this instrument goes far beyond its financial size: this is a tangible demonstration of the EU’s solidarity, and we do need a lot more demonstration of solidarity in Europe today. The FEAD is not designed to help Member States, but to help people directly. Children going to school on a hungry stomach suffer equally, wherever they live. Let me recall that thanks, among others, to the support of this House, the February European Council agreed to maintain this Fund and proposed to earmark a budget of EUR 2.5 billion for it.

As you may know, despite this agreement at the highest level, a group of Member States continues to oppose this Fund, and in particular the fact that it would cover the whole EU. Some argue that the use of the fund should be made voluntary. No country, however, wants to give up its share of the envelope. Clearly, such voluntary use would almost certainly make it impossible for the Fund to reach the budget eventually earmarked to it. This would be a step back on EU solidarity, and something very difficult to explain to our citizens. Furthermore, to the extent that it could require a notification process as suggested by some, a voluntary solution is likely to delay the implementation of the FEAD, putting at risk the provision of assistance during the winter 2013-2014.

I understand that there are vivid discussions on this key issue in this House also. Members will not be surprised if I say that, for the Commission, the report as adopted by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs would be a good starting point for a negotiation with the Council.

Derek Vaughan, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − Mr President, this new fund is one of the next MFF’s important new initiatives. Therefore, I was pleased to draft the opinion for the Committee on Budgets.

The Committee on Budgets fully supports the creation of this fund. Indeed, we believe that food banks are currently one of the few growth industries in many parts of Europe. We believe that this fund should be EUR 3.5 billion, not EUR 2.5 billion, if it is to have a big impact. We also believe that the fund should be made available to all Member States, although they should be given some flexibility as to how they use the new fund.

On co-financing, I support an 85% figure. However, I accept that in some cases 95% would be more acceptable, particularly in Member States which are facing severe financial difficulties at the moment.

Finally, as the fund is now an ESF programme, I believe that we need to make sure that the rules are as simple as possible for those organisations which want to deliver this aid.

Marije Cornelissen, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. − Mr President, I want to urge all colleagues to vote in favour of Amendments 71, 72 and 73, which were put forward by ALDE and the Greens and supported by the ECR and EPP. These amendments give Member States the choice on how much of the fund they want to use and the option of transferring what they do not use to others who need it more.

This will provide the highest level of solidarity for three main reasons: firstly, if all Member States, including Germany and the UK, are forced to participate, the countries worst hit by the crisis will lose millions, leaving people there to starve – even if the fund goes up to EUR 3.5 billion. Compared with now, there will be a transfer from countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain to countries like Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden. This is the exact opposite of solidarity. These amendments will prevent this.

Secondly, while poverty is equally horrible in all Member States, it is not the same in all Member States. With the amendments, aid organisations will have a choice of measures to help the most deprived in their country best.

Thirdly, a large blocking minority in Council have said that they would rather have no fund at all than an obligatory fund. Using this as a negotiating tactic is plain silly. Making the fund obligatory will not give them a reason to go up to EUR 3.5 billion, it will merely put the whole fund in danger, leaving everybody out in the cold. The amendments will prevent this; please vote in favour of them.

Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her good and meticulous work on this very important dossier.

For those who will benefit from this fund, it is literally a lifeline, because it will ensure that those people who need it most have access to reasonable nutrition and to some of the basic necessities of life. But the fund is more than that. It is also a message, a signal from this Parliament and from the EU institutions that solidarity is much more than just a word. It is something tangible and real, and this programme is part of that reality.

It is my understanding that there is a blocking minority in the Council, and I have read the reasoned opinions put forward by some of these Member States, where they speak of subsidiarity. But what about subsidiarity when it comes to overseeing one another’s budgets? What about subsidiarity when it comes to deciding how taxpayers’ money in Member States is spent or what we do with depositors in Cypriot banks? Subsidiarity is an argument that is used against the provision of food to needy EU citizens, but it is totally ignored when other decisions are being taken. In my opinion this is neither logical nor reasonable. I believe many EU citizens would be appalled to know that some Member States are blocking the adoption of this dossier and the setting up of this fund.

My group, ALDE, is fully in support of this fund. However, there is a debate as to whether it should be mandatory or voluntary. My group is supporting a voluntary option, in other words that Member States can access this fund, but – crucially – is asking for it to be ring-fenced. This would mean that those Member States which want to use their own systems and not the EU programmes can continue to do so, while other Member States, who want to use this fund, can use their own allocation and will have the legal base to use some of their cohesion funding for this hugely important fund. In our view, this will help guarantee that all of the fund will be used, because, if a Member State is allocated a certain amount under the mandatory option and does not use it, then that portion of the fund goes back to the EU budget.

We already know that fewer than 20 – I think it is 17 – of the Member States operate the current fund. We cannot force Member States to use the fund but, I believe that giving flexibility under the ring-fencing of the fund is the best option to ensure that all of the fund will be used for food for the most deprived.

Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, while I welcome this debate about poverty in Europe, I think that using EU funding to tackle domestic poverty issues is highly unfair to the taxpayers of those few countries that actually make significant contributions to the EU budget. In the UK, there is a growing resentment towards those Member States that are seen as being takers. It is deeply regrettable that the UK, with its great tradition of helping those less fortunate than itself, has a growing resentment about funding this or that EU project while British people are suffering crippling cutbacks at home. No wonder more and more people are turning against the European Union. Only last week, the leading philanthropist Bill Gates, a regular visitor to the European Parliament, congratulated the United Kingdom on its remarkable record in foreign aid – a record, incidentally, that the EU likes to piggyback on and take credit for.

This report acknowledges that Member States should take responsibility for issues of poverty and social inclusion, and that the fund for European aid and the most deprived should not be seen as replacing those responsibilities. But what message is being sent out by the call for an increased budget for the fund for 2014-2020? Who will supply this extra money: the 200 000 British citizens who are dependent on food banks in order to feed their families, or the growing army of unemployed youth? The economic crisis, largely the fault of the eurozone, is now so bad that we have to say charity begins at home.

Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I have a couple of questions, but firstly I would like to make it absolutely clear that it is scandalous that we even have to look at having a food distribution programme in the European Union and that people are living in poverty and, secondly, that if we are going to, I certainly would support such a Fund.

However, I would like some clarification. If each country is expected to participate but does not use the allocated money, what happens to that money as foreseen under this proposal? Is it reallocated within the Fund or does it go back to the general budget?

Secondly, in some accounts of the allocation that I have seen, the UK and Germany, for example, could do very well out of this Fund in terms of getting significant amounts of money and other countries, some of whom have been dependent on this Fund, such as Spain and Portugal, would actually have a lower allocation of monies as a result of Germany and the UK, etc. getting so much. Is that correct?

Thirdly, does one presume, given that this financing is coming from the European Social Fund envelope, that if countries are taking money for the Food Aid Fund from that envelope, they will have less to use from the Social Fund for other things?

Richard Howitt (S&D). - Mr President, half a million people in Britain are relying on food aid to fend off starvation, with a 230% rise in numbers in my own East of England constituency. Foodshare – the UK charity providing emergency food aid to 40 000 people per day through food banks, homelessness and domestic violence shelters – Crisis and the Salvation Army are pleading with us for Europe to agree this aid, yet David Cameron and the British Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are intent on denying them even the crumbs off the table.

To the Liberals as well as the Tories I say it is utter hypocrisy for the British Government to say it opposes this aid on the grounds that this is a matter for national governments and not Europe, when it has no intention whatsoever of addressing that matter. In Britain, all the major brands and retailers including Tesco, Sainsbury and Asda have committed to Fareshare that no good food is wasted. Britain’s Government should not be allowed to waste this opportunity to match them by helping feed the most hungry .......

László Andor, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this extremely rich exchange of views, and particularly the rapporteur for the work she has done in the recent period. I am glad that the support of this House for maintaining the FEAD instrument remains unequivocal. There is also a strong and visible support for increasing the proposed envelope and that is why also there are relevant questions about the link between this particular fund for the most deprived and other funds like, for example, the European Social Fund.

I would like everyone to pay equal attention, for example, to the minimum share of the European Social Fund, because there is a likelihood that an increase in the sum – in the total volume of the FEAD instrument – could result in a reduction in other priorities which are supposed to be funded from the European Social Fund in the area of employment and social inclusion. So it is even more important to take this seriously.

Also to clarify for Ms Lambert, if funds were not used they would go back to the general budget according to the Commission proposal, and this is a very important detail. However, if there is an increase, it would be budget neutral for the Member States, at least on the side of the contribution. I think this is also a very important point, because we heard some concerns from UK and Dutch Members of the House. We know these two countries played a significant role in cutting the total budget, which also revealed their approach to solidarity in the European Union. However, I think the large majority agrees that the fight against poverty has to be taken very seriously in the European Union. Indeed, as Ms Bastos also reminded us, in the Europe 2020 strategy there is an explicit target to reduce the number of those living in poverty or social exclusion.

It is also recognised that food aid is not the only form of supporting those who are most deprived. Yesterday in this House we had an excellent debate on the Commission’s Social Investment Package, which aims at helping the Member States to modernise their welfare states in order to maintain an effective social safety net. All this is very important, together with the EU support that can be provided for these efforts, while we also recognise the diversity of various welfare models in the EU. So in different countries, different measures have to be taken to ensure that there are no holes in the social safety net. But I think in all Member States the most important starting point for any discussion is to ensure that there are economic policies in place that bring back economic growth to all Member States and their regions.

The proposals which Ms Delli pointed to about minimum income legislation merit consideration. As you know, the Commission last year called on the Member States to introduce minimum wages. This is part of the dialogue between the Commission and the Member States. Also, where there are minimum income schemes either in function or under consideration, the Commission provides support – not least in the Social Investment Package – by proposing reference budgets to help calculate and put in practice such minimum income regimes.

I understand that the voluntary or mandatory nature of the use of the fund is less consensual. In the House I stated my position in favour of our proposal, both on political and technical grounds. It should be clear that, if it is mandatory, there is clearly more incentive for the Member States to use this fund and help the most deprived.

I now look forward to the vote and to your final decision on this matter. It is critical that we can now start opening the discussion with the Council, as the clock is ticking and we need to conclude our discussions if we want the fund to be operational from 1 January 2014.